nutrition audit in community hospitals in provide...table 2: description of subjects included in the...
Post on 27-Sep-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Nutrition Audit in Community Hospitals
in Provide
Nisha Desai, Head of Medicines Management, Provide
Prevalence of malnutrition - UK
UK population in 2007
61 million people
3 million people (5%) in
the UK
‘at risk’ of malnutrition
• 5% in residential care
• 2% in hospital
• 93% in community
Elia & Russell 2009
Objectives
The objectives for this audit were to:
Assess current practice around the
provision of oral nutrition support
within community hospitals
The prevalence of malnutrition
Appropriate use of ONS in the
community hospitals
The audit was completed for all three
community hospitals:
• St Peters
• Braintree
• Halstead
Mainly rehabilitation and patients requiring
specialist support prior to being discharged
Identifying Current Practice
The audit designed to assess:-
• Patient characteristics (gender, DOB and current diagnosis)
• Present and previous care setting, including length of stay at current community hospital
• Weight and height information, including details of BMI and MUST scores
• Details of any nutrition care plan, including oral nutritional support (ONS) use, compliance, recommended dose and reason for prescription
• Healthcare professional contact (GP or dietician) during the last 3 months
• Any previous hospital admissions during the last 3 months
The number of patients in each community hospital
Table 1: Number of patients at each Community Hospital
Community
Hospital
Number of patients (%) Average LOS days
Braintree 20 (37) 30.7 ± 30.3
Halstead 13 (24) 8.0 ± 8.3
St Peters 21 (39) 19.1 ± 16.7
Total 54 (100) 20.4 ± 22.7
During the audit at Halstead three patients had been discharged that morning so
were not included
In total 54 patients were screened and average Length of Stay (LOS) was 20.4
±22.7 days
Patient Characteristics
Table 2: Description of subjects included in the audit
Gender (n=53)
Male Female Total
Number 17 36 53
Mean Age (years) 81.4±14.1 80.7±11.0 81.0±11.8
Age Range (years) 38-95 50-100 38-100
*Please note missing gender for one patient
• There were 17 male and 36 female patients
• One patient had no gender available in their notes
• The average age for all of the patients was 81.0
11.8 years, with an
age range of 38-100
Frequency of patients with documented Height, Weight and
BMI data
• 12 (23%) patients did not have a documented height
• 9 (17%) patients did not have a documented weight
• Four patients without a documented height had a BMI
• One patient without a documented weight had a BMI
• One patient had both weight and height documented, but no BMI
• Three patients had a total ‘MUST’ score but no documented height
Table 3: Number of patients with documented height, weight and BMI
Male (n17) Female (n36) Total (n54)
Height 14 (83%) 28 (78%) 42 (77%)
Weight 13 (76%) 32 (89%) 45 (83%)
BMI 14 (83%) 29 (81%) 43 (79%)
Reasons for Admission to Hospital Table 4: Reason for admission to current hospital
No. of patients (n=54) Percentage (%)
Infection 4 7
Orthopaedic 12 22
Cancer 5 9
Cardiac 15 27
Malnutrition 2 4
Neurological 6 11
Gastro-intestinal 4 7
Respiratory 5 9
Unknown 1 2 *stroke patients are included within a cardiac diagnosis
When a patient was diagnosed with a number of clinical conditions the most prevalent
condition, which would have the biggest impact on their nutritional status was used.
Documented ‘MUST’ scores
Breakdown of ‘MUST’ scores
‘MUST’- 3 steps
• BMI Score
• Weight Loss Score
• Acute Disease Effect Score
STEP 1: BMI
63% of patients had a documented BMI score
STEP 2: Weight Loss Score
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
<5% 5-10% >10% Missing
Pe
rce
nta
ge %
Weight Loss Score
Documented Step 2 Score (Weight loss)
No patients had a documented weight loss score
STEP 3: Acute Disease Effect Score
Only 1 patient had an Acute Disease Effect
Score
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Yes No/Missing
Pe
rce
nta
ge %
Acute Disease Effect Score
Documented Step 3 Score (Acute disease effect)
Total ‘MUST’ Score documented in notes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 - 6 Missing
Pe
rce
nta
ge %
Overall Score
Total Documented ‘MUST’ Score
46% patients had a documented ‘MUST’ Score
Recalculating the MUST Score
• Using the documented data for height and weight, BMI
and a BMI (‘MUST’) scores were recalculated
• If weight 3-6 months ago was available a weight loss
score was recalculated
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk
Pe
rce
nta
ge %
'MUST' Risk Score
Recalculated 'MUST' Scores
Recalculated ‘MUST’ Scores using
documented data
n39 (missing data for 15 patients)
In total, using the documented data;
• 39 patients have had a recalculation using ‘MUST’.
• 12 of these patients are at risk (medium/high) of malnutrition which equates to
30% of patients.
Comparison of documented and recalculated
BMI Scores
Documented Recalculated
Nutritional Care Plan
Documented data for the nine
patients on ONS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Documented Height Documented Weight Documented BMI Total MUST
Nu
mb
er
of
Pat
ien
ts
Documented data for patients receiving ONS
Yes
No
Summary Documented use and compliance of prescribed ONS
ONS
name Dose/day
Reason for
Prescription
Compliance
information
Documented
BMI
Documented
Height
Documented
weight
Total
MUST
Recalculated
BMI
Reason for
Admission
Fresubin
stage 1
thickener
Unknown Unknown Unknown 23.0 Unknown Unknown Cardiac
Fresubin
Jucy OD
Increase calorie
intake
Doesn't like black
currant flavour,
but is managing
one per day
18.0 Unknown 17.5 Orthopaedi
c
Fresubin
Energy
Fibre
OD
Written notes by
Dietitian which
stated the patient
was transferred
from Broomfield
having 2 ONS per
day
Recommended
twice per day by
the Dietitian but
only written up for
1 per day. Reports
managed 3/4
bottle
21.0 0 21.0 Infection
Fresubin
5kcal
shot and
Fresubin
stage 1
thickener
Unknown Unknown Unknown
23.0 0 22.5 Cardiac
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Fresubin
5kcal
shot
BD Losing weight Prescribed on the
8/10/2013 19.0 1 19.0 Cancer
Fresubin
2Kcal OD
Loose stools and
moderate food
intake
Good, but has lost
9kg in a week.
Patient suffers
from oedema
21.5 Unknown 21.5 Cardiac
Fresubin
2Kcal OD Unknown Unknown 18.0 2 Unknown
Malnutritio
n
Fresubin
2Kcal Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Cancer
Fresubin
2Kcal Unknown Unknown Unknown unknown Unknown Unknown
Malnutritio
n
Summary
• Appropriate use of the MUST tool to identify high risk patients
• Identify inappropriate use of ONS e.g. volume and advise appropriately in reference to Policy
• Identify training needs and incorporate into mandatory training for clinical staff
top related